My interpretation is that all of these issues falls into two main themes prevalent in the film. One is the thought that "those things only happen in the movies" and the other being divine intervention.

Well it just comes off as kind of lazy writing to me. Again, a suspension of disbelief is required when watching the film. I just wish mostly that the characters were challenged more so with their thinking in what they were doing. They don't really go through any character arcs at all either. They literally wake up in the middle of the night, are told to do something, and go do it because "God" told them too. Good thing they weren't told to murder innocent children. That kind of bugs me more so than the plot holes and contrived nonsense.

I think a reviewer put it best when he said this is a movie you either hate or love.

Sometimes I read this thread and wonder if any of you actually ever enjoy a movie, like just sit back and watch it without requiring a character arc and all that jazz.

A movie doesn't have to be flawless to be fun.

Oh yeah. I was just talking about it with a critical eye. Even some of my favorite movies have flaws. All movies I should say have flaws. I should have talked about what I liked with The Boondock Saints as well. I forgot that in my "objective" viewpoint of the film.

Some movies more than others you just have to turn your brain off for the most part to enjoy it. I usually do this the first time I watch a movie.

Robocop should never be remade, unless we travel back to the 80's and get John Carpenter involved.

On that note, I saw The Thing prequel the other day. Pretty weak, but Winstead is still cute. And I can't describe it, since he is only in awful things, but I find myself rooting for Eric Christian Olsen.

I saw him in a preview for Celeste and Jesse Forever and it made me happy. Fun cast for that one - Samberg, Rashida Jones, Elijah Wood, ECO, Emma Roberts, Chris Messina. Not sure if it will amount to anything good, but it's a charming cast.

I agree, x100. I won't lie and say that I won't watch it, but I'd prefer they wouldn't remake it.

I haven't watched that movie in a long time. When I watch it again, this time with a critical eye, I'll let you know what worked for me and what didn't.

I'll get this out of the way now: There Will Be Blood is a great film from what I remember, but it probably isn't perfect. No film is. Especially when film making is essentially an art, with a lot of aspects left up to personal interpretation/a matter of taste, etc. which is why no film is perfect.

I'm in the same boat with you wogtolia, I enjoy a lot more movies then most. That just makes it even better when a movie is really amazing.

Yeah, I've gone through the "movie snob" phase where I only watched "good" movies. I've found that a lot of bad movies are actually fun. Take John Carter for example, that was just a good fun movie to watch, it's not revolutionary, it's not fleshed out, it probably could have used another hour to make it a better movie but that didn't stop it being a good waste of time.

There Will Be Blood is actually a great counter example, it is a great movie, well acted, well produced and all that, but it wasn't actually very fun to watch, in fact it was almost painful to watch. It's not a movie I'd probably ever bother watching again but I'm very glad I've seen it. Requiem for a Dream is another great example, I will almost certainly never watch that again but god it was an awesome movie.

So whilst I will appreciate a great movie, I wont not enjoy a movie because it isn't great. It's nice when you get both those elements (like Batman Begins or Fight Club) but if I have one I'm fine with it :)

So instead, you're a snob against people who you claim to be movie snobs? Requiem for a Dream is painful to watch for a reason, because it's trying to get underneath your skin and horrify you. It's not supposed to be John ******* Carter.

So instead, you're a snob against people who you claim to be movie snobs? Requiem for a Dream is painful to watch for a reason, because it's trying to get underneath your skin and horrify you. It's not supposed to be John ******* Carter.

In what way was I snobbish? People should do what they want, I was just asking if people enjoy the movies that they are critiquing still despite their warts, this thread can generally be very negative so it's nice to hear if people enjoyed a movie, rather than if it had a satisfactory character arc or camera angle as the two are not mutually exclusive.

I said that I've personally found movie watching to be better because I've started watching more "bad" movies, at no point did I say that you had to start watching them.

I thought TWBB was incredibly enjoyable. Beautiful to look at, great performances, brilliant score. It kind of had everything going for it. I thought it was robbed of Best Picture though I did really ******* enjoy No Country. Paul Thomas Anderson is easily the best living director.

It is so insanely quotable as well. Not the perfect movie but damn close. I just don't see any real flaws in it. I probably enjoy Boogie Nights more and Magnolia may be the better film, Punch Drunk Love has more heart. All that said it is a masterpiece.

I thought TWBB was incredibly enjoyable. Beautiful to look at, great performances, brilliant score. It kind of had everything going for it. I thought it was robbed of Best Picture though I did really ******* enjoy No Country. Paul Thomas Anderson is easily the best living director.

I'd like a word, Brent...

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Goosemahn

The APS is strong in this one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by killxswitch

Tears for Fears is better than whatever it is you happen to be thinking about right now.

Marty is truly great and one of the best directors of all time but PT Anderson and Kubrick are one and two by a lot in my books. Just personal preference. I would not argue with you at all though, Scorcese not only is a pioneer but he consistently makes incredible films.